Well, I have just bitten the bullet and joined the Bloggers for Thompson blogroll. I know I have left it a bit late but I have been quietly supporting him for a while.
I try to stay away from having too great an involvement in US politics, its your country after all, but as most of my readers come from there (you outnumber Australians by about 50%) I sort of feel welcome.
My main reason for taking sides is the results today, which indicate that your worst possible candidate, with the exception of Ron Paul (and I am not totally sure about that) won the primary.
Huckabee seems to be totally contrived. Fred is a self made man, coming from humble beginnings, and others have done it themselves but the Huckster likes to play po-folks or at least one generation away from po-folks. As Timothy Egan pointed out in his opinion piece in the New York Times: -
“Huckabee revels in the class war. He’s Two-Buck Huck, and darn proud of it. He likes nothing better than playing the Hick from Hope. He and his wife lived in a trailer for a while, he points out. His son killed a dog one summer, “a mangy dog” at that, as Huckabee explained to the befuddled national press corps. He said he used to eat squirrels, cooking them up in his popcorn popper.”
Most concerning to me is that he appears to be one of the old style religious shysters, using faith to sell his product, and being judgmental about it while he is at it. Who but a fraud would hold a press conference outside a church with several pastors present to draw attention to the fact that: - He went, and: - Fred didn’t and was therefore not the sort of person who should be President.
Why hell Huck, Fred may just be comfortable enough in his own faith not to feel the need to go, or didn’t feel the need to be seen there with a host of reporters. While we are at it Huck, what other positions should you be disqualified from if you are not conspicuously seen in church every Sunday? Quite a few million Americans might just be interested.
Is, or is not, the USA still a secular state?
Romney; Well he isn’t totally unacceptable, but really if the GOP wish to vote for a liberal, why not a Democrat?
Ron Paul; You just have to admit that this guy has a different approach, especially to sources of information. All of those other silly buggers standing think that terrorism is something to do with a wish to harm people of the free world, but not Ron. Ron just knows that it is because of American involvement in the Middle East, after all the terrorists said so, and heavens above, Osama wouldn’t lie about a thing like that.
None of those other candidates realize that the war in Afghanistan is about oil pipelines like Ron does. I have to admit that the total absence of oil pipelines in that country had me a bit confused there for a while too, but Ron said so didn’t he? I mean, this guy is standing for the highest office in the land, so you can hardly regard him as an eccentric.
In Australia, (were a bit behind the times here) we still tend to believe that the war in Afghanistan was caused by an incident where terrorists flew aircraft into tall buildings, killing around 3,000 people, and the subsequent refusal of that government to hand over those responsible.
Nup, I want to see Fred in the White house.